3 total
Commission's reduction of police officer's disciplinary penalty set aside as unreasonable; original demotion restored.
The applicant police service sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which had reduced a disciplinary penalty imposed on a police officer from an 18-month demotion to a 40-hour forfeiture.
The Commission had found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the officer twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and by failing to ensure consistency of disposition with a comparator case.
The Divisional Court held that the Commission's decision was unreasonable, as it misapplied the Kienapple principle by failing to consider the lack of legal nexus between the offences, and misapprehended the facts of the comparator case.
The Commission's decision was set aside and the Hearing Officer's penalty was restored.
Application for judicial review of HRTO decision dismissed; police apprehension under Mental Health Act was reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision which found that the respondent police service did not discriminate against her when officers apprehended her under the Mental Health Act.
The applicant, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, was taken to the hospital after officers spent an hour trying to convince her to attend voluntarily.
The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no defect in the Tribunal's proceedings or its conclusion that the officers had cause to apprehend the applicant.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Human rights application alleging racial and age profiling by police dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services based on colour and age contrary to the Human Rights Code after being detained by police and charged with trespass.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the police officer's actions were based on a property owner's complaint about two young males entering a wooded area suspected of marijuana cultivation, the applicant's unusual explanation of looking for a Sasquatch, and his use of a rental car, rather than his age or colour.
The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
